It should be noted that the three categories (signal, contributory, transformative) enable us to link three dimensions developed in the research:
– the ambition of the objective,
– the level of influence of the engagement,
– the engager’s role within a coalition (see pp. 22 and 32 of the report).
This categorisation makes the scope of the engagement dependent not only on the level of influence but also on the role within a coalition and the ambition of the objective. It therefore captures the efforts made by the engager and not merely the outcome of the engagement.
The VOICE method is not limited to prioritising only the most influential engagement: all engagements count. The different levels of influence identified (ranging from no influence to recognition by the company) are not a hierarchy but rather a tool for steering engagement activities. They enable resources to be allocated where they can be most effective.
Furthermore, the classification of the different objectives (transparency/operational/strategic) helps to avoid any bias in the interpretation of the results regarding the influence of the various engagement activities. It is, in fact, understandable that the level of influence may vary depending on the degree of ambition of each objective (for example, it is often easier to demonstrate an influence on a transparency objective than on a strategic one).
In summary, the VOICE method recognises that, to overcome a sticking point, it is often necessary for other similar requests – demonstrating its materiality – to have already been submitted to the company. Thus, a transformative engagement (with recognised or highly probable influence) is sometimes only achievable after several signal or contributory engagements (see pp. 22 and 32 of the report) have previously been made by other investors or engagers.